The story of the arrest of Mel Gibson for drunk driving last week deserves some thought. It would be too easy for Christians to castigate Gibson for drunkenness. Way too easy to write him off for foul language. And it is tempting to throw stones at him for his horrendous statements about the Jewish people. But instead of castigating Gibson - I want to remind the evangelical church of our role in elevating Gibson to hero status not long ago because he was making "The Passion of the Christ" despite of Hollywood's inattention to it.
Gibson flew across the country visiting church after church, pastor's conference after conference, marketing his movie. Consequently, the movie brought in over 700 million dollars to date. (I grew very tired of evangelicals crying that Gibson had put up 25-50 million of his own money - you do the math on the profit margin...)
Bottom line, the movie was a success because the evangelical community made it that way. Never mind that the Jewish community reminded us that the movie tells the story in a stereotyped way that has fueled Jewish hatred down through the years. Evangelical leader after leader stated that this movie was the "greatest evangelistic tool" of the last 100 years. Many anticipated that millions would come to Christ and flood our churches. Well, none of that has happened and now we are left picking up the pieces after seeing Gibson's mugshot on CNN.
Here is what really bothers me:
1. I haven't heard any evangelical leader to date make any statement about Gibson's terrible language about the Jews. We made such a huge deal about the movie, now we are deaf and dumb.
2. I am tired of evangelicals believing that we need "tools" like Hollywood movies in order to win people to Christ. Whatever happened to living like Christ in such as way that the church itself was the "tool" for evangelism.
3. I am sad that the evangelical church can so easily be turned into a marketing machine. I suspicion that we will see more marketing efforts of Hollywood toward the evangelical church - (I now suspicion that Dan Brown is probably laughing all the way to the bank)
I pray for Mel Gibson - but I pray more for the evangelical community.
Mel Gibson Sheriff video
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
i love the way you think!
If Mel Gibson was my hero and role model then maybe I would feel a need to respond in some way to this incident. You're upset about the churches silence on this? Perhaps the church did not make him the hero you think we did. Or in the way you think we did.
You seem to know Mel a lot better than I. I’m not sure if he tried to get into churches or if he simply accepted invitations.
“none of that has happened” in relation to evangelism from the movie. “None” is obviously the wrong term there, as many people were impacted and influenced through this movie and are now in churches. (True, Not the masses as some silly fools predicted... as if building the kingdom of God and making disciples were as easy as watching a movie. HA!) Impacted “through” the movie, not “by” the movie. I believe God did use it in many lives for His purposes. And I’m glad for that.
Although, I’m totally with ya on 2.
and 3.
Preach it!
Mark,
Thanks for you comments. You know how passionate I am about this subject so I hope that I didn't overstate my case.
However, let me explain why I used the word hero to the evangelical community. The evangelical community was the ones that I heard saying, "Thank God for Mel Gibson, that he is making this movie when Hollywood wouldn't support him." He was applauded, cheered, and eventually given given our money.
He was on the platform of WillowCreek, after a private screening for pastors. The movie was supported and pre-screened at Saddleback, New Life Church and many others. James Dobson and Ted Haggard (President of the National Association of Evangelicals)were on board early as well. Mel went to a pastor's conference where 800 pastors pre-screened it at one time. In every case, the movie company asked for their support to make the movie a success. In one case the pastors had to sign a release form that they would say nothing negative about the film, but if they liked it they could speak positively about it in their congregations. So - the movie was clearly marketed to the church. And if Mel simply responded to invitations - that only makes it worse in my book. Again, I am not after Mel, I am only trying to speak about the evangelical church.
In response to your comment that "none" is the wrong word- acutally it is the right word in the context that I wrote it. None refers to "the greatest evangelistic tool of the last 100 years" and to "millions" coming to Christ. In that context, none of these have happened - so I will stick with "none".
I want to be clear that I think the movie is a masterpiece of movie-making. And I know that many people have been touched by the movie. Well and good. I just wish "our" tradition would think a little more before it baptizes movies.
D
Mark & BD,
If I may address the issue:
while I agree that "none" may be hyperbole, I believe it is closer to the truth than it is fiction. Those who came to church as a result of this movie are akin to those who come to those tent meetings you wrote so frustratingly. I believe that Mel's movie was the ultimate example of preaching to the choir and while the angels DO rejoice for even one soul who comes to the LORD, as you pointed out in your post, what the church should be focusing on is discipling the flock. As to whether he was marketing or was being courted by Evans- well, we might have to ask the angels to jump off that pinhead they were dancing on, because it may be necessary to use it to parse this issue. Bottom line, I do believe the church leaders need to pay close atention to the character & content of what they recommend to the Body. Likewise, we need to be in dialogue with our Jewish brothers & sisters for a reason- not just listen to their problems & concerns and blithely continue on our course anyway.
jefe
PS- BD, if this was the way you added "hilarity" to the blog, I am NEVER, EVER, wasting any more video clips on your sorry butt.
canuck,
i speak from the point of view as someone who served in my country's national guard (6 years). i am zionist (in the sense that israel certainly has a right to exist; however, of late my own religious beliefs have dictated that i see myself as a pacifist. I mention my background to you as a frame of reference. i saw your post on my friend dwayne's blog (real brothers) and felt compelled to post. it seems unfair to assume that anyone who disapproves of israel's response i automatically against the right of israel to defend herself. your post highlights the problem- there is only one way to solve this problem: either they destroy us or we destroy them. (believe me, before you write me off as a hopeless naif, i understand the deadly seriousness of the situation- I got into an argument with a Lebanese-american last week over this b/c he failed to take into account israel's right to protect itself from Hizbollah's continued attacks). However, I would point out that the problem that seems to be occurring is one my own country is making in Iraq (& Afghanistan). The more Israel attempts to wipe out terrorists, the more she makes them by killing civilians. It's a no-win situation and Hizbollah knows this. I understand that you are not a rabid anti-Muslim (and clearly you can see I am not an anti-Semite), but urge you to see that simply disagreeing with Israel's level of response does not equate with not believing she cannot defend herself.
Yours,
jefe
Post a Comment